The Clinton Campaign's Awkward Electoral College Argument

Somebody needs to remind Ed that Obama will be running against McCain in the general election, not Hillary. Apples to oranges. Next!

Yeah this is really odd to me, too. I've heard others try to explain but it's weird to me. I also think it's convenient Gov. Rendell and many of Hillary's supporters ignore the fact Obama's won the swing states of Missouri, Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin. Missouri's been more accurate than Ohio historically.

"Let us ignore for the moment the uncertain proposition that the winner of an intra-party primary automatically has a better chance of winning a state in a general election."

Exactly. It's not like he's going to lose California in the general or anything.

You're right they're seriously underestimating the uproar, especially post-Al Gore/2000, it's going to cause if they try to overrule the democratically elected delegate count.

Michael, I think this is something to look at and not simply sneer at as an evil Clinton ploy. The Obama campaign better be looking at how they can improve in some of these states.

I posted this below, but think it raises valid questions.

This is a take on the electoral vote question from a Philadelphia Daily News blogger. (And Will Bunch is an Obama supporter)

It is based on Survey USA polls and discusses who would likely take which states against McCain. New Jersey seems to be highly questionnable. Pennsylvania is not Obama's best demographic. It is much more like Ohio.

http://www.attytood.com/2008/03/sopranos_country_take_the_mcca.html

I agree he needs to look at it. But SHE needs to look at how she'd win states like Missouri, Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin too. What voters miss is she misses his swing states by just as much if not more than he misses hers.

Virginia, white men and suburbans there won't go for her. They're the people who, in exist polls, strongly dislike her and would rather vote for McCain.

Missouri, no way she (or any Democrat) gets without black voters. She's lost that. You'll need some rural support, but as a Dem, you need those black voters.

Maryland, ditto with respect to D.C. suburbs, Baltimore and Annapolis.

She has just as big, if not a bigger, electability problem than he does. I'm not saying what will happen in the primary, what I am saying is she will lose these swing states in the general and the Party had better look at that if the real argument is on electablity. Especially if they want to win the White House.

The Clintons and the media want to talk about OH, Fl, and PA as they are the only staes that matter. But Hillary would be weak in upper midwest blue-leaning states like Wiscosin, IA, and maybe MN if Pawlenty is VP. If Obama is royally screwed by the party, even super blue Illinois could go for Mccain based on how beloved Obama is in Illinois. On the other hand, both Obama and Clinton are likely to carry Ohio. Hillary has some advantages in PA and FL, but Obama has some unique advatages in Virginia and Colorodo.

Moreover, time is on Obama's side in appealing to these states, wheras its hard to see HIllary moving past her base. Independent decide swing states and they will go to McCain. Hillary's only hope wold be a huge base turnout, but screwing Obama would fracture that base. I don't really see a plauble Hillary path to the presidency unless she wins pledged delegates.

Is there any doubt that independents in swing states will leave HRC in droves given any perception that she "stole" the nomination?

Only to those who aren't quite all there Cheeseman. Wish somebody would tell the DNC though.

So after the debacle of 2000 we should see to it that the pledged delegates control the party, not the popular vote, because that is Obamas new stance. This stuff is stupid Obama wants to be President as much as Hillary or he wouldn't be spending so much time trying to attain the White House. They will all do whatever it takes and take the win np matter how it comes, neither is holier than thou.

Actually, if you follow through the links above and look at the Survey USA data, you will see that against McCain Obama is predicted to get 280 electoral college votes and Hillary would get 276.

Survey USA has had really accurate results in the past and this poll is based on 30,000 interviews.

Although Obama wins by a few more delegates, as I said above, I think it would be important for his campaign to see what they can do about improving it. The results in PA should be a good predicter.

Every one must remember Obama is getting a lot of his wins in caucus states, which only really reflect a certain kind of voter - the overzealous who get out and campaign on their own, or the young who want to'party' because its cool right now. Caucus don't reflect votes of masses who can't or don't get out to caucus because of difficulty being in crowds, low vision, unsteady gait, other health issues ,and time restraint, transportation -
the list goes on.

Senator Clinton has a very good arguement. She comes in nicely inbetween the other far left and far right candidates. She gets the votes when people can plan to get out to the polls instead of being forced into an uncomfortable and unfamiliar caucus.

I don't see why you want to leave aside the important argument for a side issue.

IAC, it doesn't matter whether Clinton would prefer there be no electoral college. Her primary campaign and her general election campaign will be the some ones we saw from Kerry.

A grass roots campaign in every state, contesting every race is much, much better for the party. That's what Obama will do.

The idea that McCain is beating Obama in PA and OH is hard to fathom, especially since Clinton's advantage in OH is attributed to NAFTA. McCain's trade record gives him no chance in those states against either of them, unless one thing is true.

I really don't think there is an electability argument to be had here, except that one thing.

If what is really going on is that the Reagan democrats, blue collar white voters in the rust belt, will not vote for a black candidate then Obama has a problem. But I'm with Chris Bowers. The benefit to the party, and the benefit downticket across the country associated with Obama's appeal to democrats of the future and to independents outweigh yet another campaign fruitlessly chasing the Reagan democrats.

I'd rather spend resources in OH preventing republicans from suppressing the vote than spend it chasing the reagan democrats.

And just by the way, did nobody notice what happened yesterday in IL-14?

That's a very red district, and it wasn't close.

ThinkTank08,

Is this "very good argument" of which you speak why Senator Clinton voted to enable the Iraq war and why she supported abrogating free speech with a constitutional amendment banning flag burning?

Just curious.

Goodness Gracious, Scherer! It appears you've done graduated from The Tim Russert School Of Journalistic Baddism! Digging up an old quote from 2000 talking about something compleeeeetely different from anything in the 2008 campaign! That put you over the top for your summa cum laude no doubt.And didn't invite us to the ceremonies, either. (sniff)

You won't want to miss your mentor in this classic movie:
When Russerts Attack

"The idea that McCain is beating Obama in PA and OH is hard to fathom, especially since Clinton's advantage in OH is attributed to NAFTA."

I was born in PA and have lived here all my life. Here is an observation from the Allentown Morning Call --

"Still, if the outlook going into Ohio looked tough a month ago, Pennsylvania offers stark realities for Obama. Less than a quarter of likely Democratic voters in the state are 44 or younger, according to a February Quinnipiac University poll. That contrasts with Ohio, where 44 percent were within that age group. Almost seven in 10 Pennsylvania likely voters are without college degrees, another bloc that trends heavily toward Clinton. Six in 10 Ohio voters fit that mold.

The kicker, at least as far as western Pennsylvania is concerned, is that the four Ohio counties that border Pennsylvania each favored Clinton over Obama by at least 30 percentage points. She won the state by more than 10 percentage points.

''This is a state that perfectly reflects her demographics,'' Aronchick said. ''[Obama's] challenge is to try to catch up to us in Pennsylvania.''

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-adsa.6304875mar09,0,1611800.story

That article looks at both Clinton's and Obama's chances against the demographics of PA.

There is a very large veterans population in PA and there are more older voters here than in any state other than Florida. NAFTA means very little here. I think these are reasons to worry about McCain.

I wonder what tactis the Clintons wouldn´t use to win the nomination. I think it would backfire bigtime on her during the general if she somehow managed to call in enough favors to get the nomination.

This is Obamas election, and I think they should just play according to the agreed-upon rules and let the best man - as it were - win. Drop the superdelegate argument, drop the do-over-in-florida-argument, drop this latest "big state" argument, just focus on winning the contest at hand.

It would indeed destroy the democratic party if the Clintons managed to get a republican president elected (by either being a very unpopular nominee or by destroying Obamas rep by mudslinging), and for us europeans, well, the democrats sometimes seem as the only hope for america in an interdependent world...

Michael Scherer - Please do not dismiss this topic as a source of irony alone. What you have stumbled upon has been the driving force behind the Clinton campaign's electoral strategy and it deserves to be discussed in greater detail.

Essentially what Rendell is describing is the 'Kerry + 1' strategy whereby all Clinton needs to do is win every state that Kerry won plus any additional state to put her over the threshold of electoral votes necessary to win the general election. In an era of limited resources this might have sounded very reasonable but it produces a number of important corollaries. The first is that this emphasis on the Kerry+1 states produces an erosion of capabilities in the other states. If the national party is focusing its financial and organizational resources on only those chosen states then the state and local party structure of the other states continues to decline and those states become even less competitive than before. The second is that any hope for governing by majority is lost because the down-ticket candidates in the non-chosen states suffer from poor party support. This leads to the opposing party achieving gains in the Senate and the House.

Contrary to this is the '50-State' strategy put forth by Howard Dean. In this model there is an effort made to win in every state with an emphasis towards building the local party apparatus and finding and grooming good candidates. Success in this model is not counted in Democratic victories necessarily, but in organization and investment for future races. A side benefit to this approach is that it brings new people and new ideas to a party that has become top-heavy, affluent, entrenched and increasingly useless. These new people and ideas have brought many new constituencies to the Democratic Party that would have otherwise never realized that the party served their interests better than the GOP.

Markos over at the DailyKos has been discussing this in his frontpage posts for several months and I would humbly suggest that you contact him for a cross-blog conversation about it. He could use the help to collect his thoughts on the matter in one place. Clearly, his history as a Dean advocate makes his strategy preferrence obvious but his on-the-ground experiences and connections make him a valuable source of information.

Also, I want to second what jayackroyd said about the election in IL-14. A political earthquake just occurred there Michael Scherer, and I think that the board would benefit from whatever information you could post about it (ie: your phone calls might get answered whereas ours will not).

Does Rendell REALLY think Obama won't win California and New York?

The most astonishing thing to me is that the political press is giving a serious listen to this garbage line of reasoning from the Clinton campaign.

First it was, "we'll be winning by the end and any suggestion that we'd try to overturn the will of the voters is ridiculous"

to.." well, we think we'll be ahead but even if we're not we'll be close enough that the super delegates will have a hard decision to make"

to..."forget the states, we believe Hillary is a stronger candidate and we have every intention of convincing the superdelegates to vote our way and don't you agree that's an excellent idea?"

Stop swallowing their spin. Please.

There is a point that has been alluded to in this article; but not thoroughly explored. What makes any society civilized? Rules. Rules that we teach our children, as we have been taught for each of us to live by and to live in our society with.

Where are our role models for this? In this election, how many times have the rules changed? For instance, both Florida and Michigan, after repeated warnings, broke the rules and put their primaries ahead of those states that remained within the rules and left their primaries on Super Tuesday. What does this say about our society? About rules? That they are made to be broken? And when they are broken, we reward the breaker with a do-over?

With each failure, the Clinton campaign has advocated and argued for changing the rules.
There are many, many examples, and each time, it is done to favor her, not the Democratic Party. The latest of these is Senator Clinton's refusal to allow Florida or Michigan to hold caucuses (because her campaign doesn't do as well with caucuses). If we operated in our jobs in the same manner as we have seen repeatedly demonstrated by the Clinton campaign--we'd be unemployed. In a civil society, we'd be charged, convicted and jailed.

It is no wonder that people are apathetic toward politics and don't exercise their right to vote. Perhaps our apathy is due to realizing that politics is one of the most obvious places where playing by the rules doesn't count and playing dirty does.

Now along comes another candidate that challenges us to challenge the rule-breakers and says that we can win in politics by playing fairly and millions of people have stepped up to embrace that challenge.

It can be boiled down to this:

Clinton: I will do it for you and enables the average citizen.

Obama: We can do it together and empowers the average citizen.

Clinton’s politics are politics as usual--rules don’t count. She believes you have to fight to win.

Obama’s approach is to play by the rules. He believes you have to unite to win and get the things done that the country needs accomplished.

Rules count and it informs us of both character and judgment of those who play by them and those who ignore them and break them.

It seems that the only member of our society that has to live by the rules is the average citizen. Big companies don’t have to live by the rules: they hire lobbyists to persuade our elected officials to create rules which favor the corporations and not necessarily are our society. Our elected officials or politicians see themselves as held to a different standard or set of rules than the average citizen. We elect these officials to speak for us, the average citizens, and all too often find out that they are speaking for special interests instead.

The average citizen is being besieged on all sides. Where were the rules to oversee the lending practices that now have many average citizens losing their homes? Now everyone is paying for the lack of oversight. Homeowners blessed enough to keep their homes, see their values plummeting and the cost of refinancing soaring despite many decreases by the Federal Reserve to the short term rate of interest. Our banking industry, which condoned, if not participated in poor lending practices are receiving help but what about the average citizen?

Where were the rules? Who do the rules benefit?

Our elected officials have chosen to put us and our country into trillions of dollars of debt to aid the average citizens of Iraq, not America, and sending xour country into an increasingly severe economic downturn. The average citizens of this country and their children and grandchildren, because of the rules, will pay for this though the majority now opposes this course of action. The choice to go to war has made our defense contractors and military/industrial complex rich. And, this has not made us or our country safer.

More than ever before, we are at an historical tipping point.

We, the average citizens, do have a voice through our right to vote. We can decide by whom we choose to elect to serve and represent us. We can decide who makes the rules and who has to live by them.

Do we elect those who govern at the EXPENSE of the people?

Or do we elect those who govern with the CONSENT of the people?

Every one must remember Obama is getting a lot of his wins in caucus states, which only really reflect a certain kind of voter - the overzealous who get out and campaign on their own, or the young who want to'party' because its cool right now.

Oh, for f#*k's sake.

Yes, because caucus's are such parties. Get a grip.

I saw the entire segment this morning and must say Rendel's entire argument seemed specious (to use Daschle's choice of word).

However, in his defense, he said its important for democrats to put forward their STRONGEST candidate in those states, and since Hillary won those states he says she is the strongest choice. This is where I will disagree with him, that SHE is the strongest even though she did win those states.

But I would not argue with the fact that democrats should send their strongest candidate to the general election.

This thinktank person said:
"Every one must remember Obama is getting a lot of his wins in caucus states, which only really reflect a certain kind of voter - the overzealous who get out and campaign on their own, or the young who want to'party' because its cool right now."

The overzealous and the kegger crowd. Exactly!

"Caucus don't reflect votes of masses who can't or don't get out to caucus because of difficulty being in crowds, low vision, unsteady gait, other health issues ,and time restraint, transportation -
the list goes on."

OK now I get it. This is a joke post. Unsteady gait is what tipped it as a joke. Low vision a close second.

"Senator Clinton has a very good arguement. She comes in nicely inbetween the other far left and far right candidates. She gets the votes when people can plan to get out to the polls instead of being forced into an uncomfortable and unfamiliar caucus."

Way to infantilize every single Clinton voter! They are too infirm and claustrophobic to attend a caucus. So we must make her our candidate in the fall!!

The stupid, it burns. Unless this is a joke. In which case, it is a bit too subtle. Unsteady gait is definitely a term I will be using though.

Since the middle of Bush's first term there has been a huge political and cultural war in our country.

But the battle has been between the conservative Blue Dog Democrats/DLC, and the progressive Democrats that are personified by MoveOn, DFA, and the DNC with Dean at the helm.

There have been a lot of primary fights (Lamont v Lieberman being a good example) in this battle. And now we have it being fought between Obama and Clinton.

I dearly want Obama to win, but at the end of the day I know that the Progressives will ultimately win the fight for the Democratic party.

Why do I feel this way? Because there are three possible scenarios for the future and all of them are winners for Progressives.

(1) Obama wins the primary and the GE, and the purge of people like Rendell and Schumer from the Party will begin.

(2) Clinton wins the primary but loses the GE, and the purge of people like Rendell and Schumer from the Party will begin.

(3) Clinton wins the primary and GE, and then promptly forgets everything she promised in the campaign: no troops out of Iraq, no universal health care, no action on the environment, etc. On top of this lack of achievement we'll have the usual Clinton scandals due to the scumbags they attract. The inevitable collapse of the Clinton administration will open the door for some serious reforms of the Democratic Party by its Progressive wing. And the first people we'll target will be people like Rendell and Schumer.

A new day is coming. And even a loss to Clinton in this primary does nothing to stop that glorious day when people like Rendell, Schumer, Hoyer, Feinstein, Reid, and Pelosi are replaced by representative from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

Michael Scherer writes:

My question is this: Just eight years after George W. Bush gained the White House by losing the popular vote and winning the Electoral College, isn't it a bit ironic that Hillary Clinton is arguing for Democrats to focus not on the popular vote but on the Electoral College?

Google has the answer. If you search for "hillary clinton electoral college," the first result is an article from November 10, 2000, "Hillary Clinton Calls For End to the Electoral College."
*********************

Aren't you really asking rhetorically if there is something hypocritical, not ironic, about Hillary Clinton's argument?

There may be some irony here but there is no hypocrisy in Clinton's argument. A party that wants to elect a president in 2008 should be aware that the Electoral College again will be determining the presidential election winner not the popular vote.

So what if Clinton has advocated to have the presidency decided by popular vote? There has been no Constitutional Amendment passed to change things. Therefore, of course, Clinton argues the best strategy for the Democratic Party in 2008 is to nominate a candidate who has a high likelihood of winning a majority in the Electoral College.

“Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries.”

--Mark Penn
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8551.html

ivb

If you're gonna do this kind of thing, you might as well do it everywhere

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4422

This is SUSA head to heads nationwide. It does indeed show PA leaning McCain in an Obama-McCain race, and Clinton in a Clinton-McCain race.

It shows Obama ahead in more states, with more electoral votes, and ahead by more where he is ahead.

I actually think these analyses are not all that relevant, because I think McCain is a poor candidate in an impossible situation who will peak right after the convention even-to-behind in polls with bad likely voter models, given the turnouts we've seen in the primaries. That's the case for either nominee, IMO, but I do think Obama will drive more turnout, both because of organization and because, in a change election, the candidate who presents the stronger image of change will dominate.

It seems particularly misguided to practicing the politics of eking out a 5 vote electoral college margin when we are looking a potential tsunami. This has been the source of failure in the last two presidential elections. 2006 and IL-14 have sent clear messages. Obama is listening. Clinton is pretending it's 1992.

A number of commentators have been arguing that the "popular vote" should be followed by the superdelegates when voting for a nominee. (Not as a rule, just as a guiding principle.) While that may be reasonable, there is no way to determine what the true Democratic popular vote is anyway.

Each state has been allocated pledged delegates based upon its number of Democratic voters (which I believe is defined as the number who voted for the Dem candidate in the previous Presidential election). How they determine those delegates, however, is left up to each State. They can choose to caucus or use or a primary. Certainly in the past delegates were not selected by the voters in separate elections, and perhaps this option still exists (e.g., the superdelegates could select the pledged delegates). The method a state uses to select its pledged delegates shouldn't impact the weight of those delegates at the convention, since these delegates do after all represent all the Dem voters in the state. But adding up all the individual votes that have been cast so far in the primary season (the so-called popular vote) violates this principle since it drastically underweights caucus states. Effectively they would be stripped of their say in the selection of the nominee, like Floreida and Michigan voters, except that the caucus states would be penalized for following the rules.

If Democrats feel that the "popular vote" should be used in lieu of pledged delegates, then they should implement that rule before the next election, so that states can decide what format of election to hold given that rule. Of course, all states would then use primaries, effectively obviating delegates anyway.

Rendell, Clinton and others are stuck in past realities when saying that Obama won't carry the small states in the general. They just can't see that the landscape has shifted. Obama has a very good chance of carrying some of the smaller red states (especially KS if he picks Sebelius as VP). Also about that illinois district and Bill Foster's election that was clearly Obama's coattails in terms of Obama's support and Obama's using his own phone banking tools and getting support from Obama's grass roots base to make those phone calls. Obama's coattails will be a big factor in bringing a Democratic majority back to the house and senate in the fall.

Malcom,

You make a good point about the popular vote.

Another is that Obama's strategy all along was to maximie delegates...had the rules been for popular votes, he would not have put so much energy in the small states and he would have put more respurces into some bigger states and likely would have decreased Hillary's margins there. This sis why changing the metric is so unfair because the campaigns' strategies were predicated on delegtes and going back to popular votes is unfair.

Another probmes with this argument is that we don't pick the president by popular vote, we pick it by electoral vote. To make a big deal out of the popular vote when the rules make that metric meningless at the primary or general level is silly.

But regardless, Hillary faces a steep challenge to win any fair counting of the popular vote. But it is possible with a florida re-vote, I think...but still not a done deal by any means....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/9/19376/68577/764/473176

Thanks Malcolm. You're quite right. Popular vote is meaningless. If popular vote were the desired metric, we'd just have regional primaries, or one national primary, and sum up the popular vote numbers.

That's also a good point, RKA. The idea of switching the metric would be to penalize Obama for operating within the set of rules that were in place. One of Clinton's strategic failures was to focus only on large states. Now she wants to make the claim that they are the only ones that count, even though the delegate rules clearly state otherwise.

"The Clinton Campaign's Awkward Electoral College Argument"

Awkward?

How about totally, abruptly, typically hippiecrapocritical?

Oh well.

HILLARY HAPPENS.

Oh, and by the way: All this talk about Hillary "winning big" in Ohio and Texas? Did she actually WIN Texas? To the best of my knowledge, the second part of the "two-step" is still being counted! Can Obama emerge from Texas with a net GAIN of delegates? Since he is ahead so far i would say: Yes He Can! (Sorry, had to do it...).

swede99:
"All this talk about Hillary "winning big" in Ohio and Texas? Did she actually WIN Texas?"

According to the latest figures from the Texas Democratic Party (which haven't been updated in a few days), with 48.3% of the statewide delagates allocated, Obama has captured 56.2%. If one, however, goes district by district and projects the outcome in each district based upon the reported results so far, then one projects that Obama will receive 55.3% of the delegates, which translates into 37 out of 67 national delegates. That gain of 7 delates more than offsets the net 4 that HRC won in the Texas primary.

These are all good points about popular votes, proportional delegate assignment and the need for a more rational nominee selection process - but I think that it should be noted that all Clinton is trying to do is develop an argument that would sway the Superdelegates. She is not trying to overhaul the entire process ut trying to come up with a line of reasoning that would convince the Superdelegates (who are in a position - like it or not - to select the final nominee) that she has a better chance of beating the Republican nominee. Which is the point.

The 'Kerry+1' strategy may seem 'awkward' or 'unfair' or 'underhanded' but it is a legitimate strategy for winning a general election. As I noted above, it does have some major drawbacks and I prefer the '50-State' strategy of Howard Dean. But that does not mean that the opposing strategy is evil - just ineffective.

The thing that eveybody would be better off remembering is that both Clinton and Obama are suffering under a nomination process that is in desperate need of repair. There are many factors that account for this - and ought to be the suject for another thread - but we can thank the party leaders for this current mess.

Clinton said at the time, "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."

Anybody actually disagree with this proposition?

I have to ask why everyone assumes either candidate will carry Ohio in the general election. I am a lifelong resident of the great state of ohio (no capitals on purpose) as well as a liflelong democrat, and I assure you that a dem winning this state should not be a forgone conclusion. The people of Ohio are issue voters and more often than not, don't vote in there own best financial interest. Confusing I am sure to outsiders, but it is indeed the case. If a dem does indeed win Ohio in the general I assure that it will be by the narrowest of margins.

cbhenderson - You wrote: "I have to ask why everyone assumes either candidate will carry Ohio in the general election."

This is an excellent point and it is one that I have been thinking about wrt Connecticut for quite some time. People may remember CT as the state in which Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont. Ned Lamont had the passionate support of the Progressive Netroots and beat Lieberman handily. So Lieberman creates the Connecticut For Lieberman Party and wins the general election with the enormous support of Republican voters and a large amount of Independents and Democrats.

What is the lesson here? Connecticut is a state where the Democratic nominee is going to have to fight hard to beat John McCain. There is a great deal of respect for McCain among Democratic voters for his perceived independence from the GOP base (which is thoroughly detested by CT Republicans). Every reason that the national GOP base gives for disliking John McCain is a reason for which CT Republicans and Independents admire him.

And now that I live in Georgia I can assure you that Obama's victory here means next to nothing as to whether he can carry this state. In fact, he will lose this state to McCain. So will Hillary. You cannot even imagine the kind of spurious crap that I here on a daily basis from my 'friends' in the neighborhood. Shocking stuff.

It is important that supporters of either Democratic candidate not confuse a victory in the primary with the ability to carry the state in the general.

BTW I found a fantastic article…A MUST read for EVERYONE “The Hussein Dynamic” at http://savagepolitics.com.
Brilliant writing that goes beyond what the MSM is feeding us!!!!

Here is an excerpt: “The issue of Barack Obama’s religious definition has captivated many Americans to the point were charges of terrorism and counter charges of racism have been thrown into the fray of the discussion, aimed at either side. To many Liberal Americans, whether or not Obama is a Muslim (or was a Muslim) is irrelevant to the feelings of “hope” and “change” that he inspires in them, which they consider to have a higher merit than petty religious or ethnic associations. To many Conservative Americans, the mere allocation of any candidate within the realm of Islam is sufficient reason to vote against him, irrespective of the details that may lie in the penumbra of his personal story. Either way, it is impossible for any citizen to make an intelligent assessment of either perspective, without knowing the details and the relevant information regarding Mr. Obama’s past. Unlike the Mainstream Media, who has automatically assumed that Obama has no relation to Islam, in a vague attempt to paint themselves as “reasonable” and “progressives”, most thinking citizens should not follow suit. There is ample evidence to make any reasonable citizen conclude that the Obama campaign and the Media have been hiding some crucial elements of this candidate’s past that should become widely known and discussed in the open. Let us then ask ourselves; Is Barack Obama a Muslim?” get the rest at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=171

elsylee...
your fear mongering is only surpassed by your ignorance. just because some racist jagov somewhere says something does not makes it true. in the future please confine your blogging to the kkk sanctioned websites. i am ashamed to have read your post and somewhat miffed that i will never get that time back.

darn i am a lousy typist.."makes" was intended to be "make"

I must have magical powers. Right after I post about the ridiculous things that I hear from my otherwise intelligent neighbors here in GA I read the same charges from conservative troll elsylee.

It does not matter how many times I say it: Obama is not a muslim; his father was but his mother was not. Obama attended a Christian Church in Illinois. This Christian Church did, in fact, preach a form of the 'Black Seperatist' line but was in no way associated with the Nation of Islam. And even if it was, there is NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE NATION OF ISLAM AND THE RADICAL ISLAMISTS THAT THREATEN THIS NATION.

So, please elsylee, sell your crazy someplace else.

Clinton said at the time, "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."

Anybody actually disagree with this proposition?
-stuart_zechman

Not that anyone's still reading this thread, but yes, I do. It completely marginalizes third-party candidates, even moreso than the current system, where you can at least protest-vote fairly safely if your state isn't in play.

If it is accompanied by desperately-needed electoral reforms, like a ranked voting system or something, then sure, go crazy.

وصلات 1
وصلات2
وصلات3
وصلات4
وصلات5
وصلات6
وصلات7
وصلات8
وصلات9
وصلات10
وصلات11
وصلات12
وصلات13
وصلات14
وصلات15
وصلات16
وصلات17
وصلات18
وصلات19
وصلات20
وصلات21

وصلات 1
وصلات2
وصلات3
وصلات4
وصلات5
وصلات6
وصلات7
وصلات8
وصلات9
وصلات10
وصلات11
وصلات12
وصلات13
وصلات14
وصلات15
وصلات16
وصلات17
وصلات18
وصلات19
وصلات20
وصلات21

العاب ،
دليل ،
منتديات ،
منتدى ،
مسجات ،
افلام ،
العاب سيارات ،
بيجامات ،
اكسسورات للموبايل ،
اكسسورات للجوال ،
فساتين اطفال ،
العاب طبخ ،
العاب الطبخ ،
القران الكريم ،
رسول الله ،
محاضرات ،
خطب ،
فيديو ،
صور ،
بلوتوث ،
برامج ،
برامج جوال ،
باربي ،
العاب تلبيس ،
نغمات ،
ازياء ،
أزياء ،
موضه ،
موضة ،
طبخ ،
مكياج ،
اناشيد ،
اناشيد مشاري العفاسي ،
عبايات ،
زهير مراد ،
احذيه ،
بدلات ،
ازياء روعه ،
مريم الحمادي ،
نقوش حنه ،
مكياج 2008 ،
مناكير ،
اقنعة للوجه ،
احمر شفاه ،
فتوح الفهد ،
اذان مكة ،
اناشيد طيور الجنة ،
اناشيد اطفال ،
اناشيد جديدة ،
أناشيد ،
تحميل اناشيد ،
دعاء ،
وظائف ،
توظيف ،
طب ،
صحه ،
شعر ،
شعر صوتي ،
خواطر ،
خواطر قصيرة ،
قصص ،
قصص قصيرة ،
قصص مرعبة ،
قصص حقيقية ،
قصص رومنسية ،
قصص اطفال ،
قصص واقعية ،
فساتين سهرة ،
فساتين ،
فساتين اعراس ،
جلابيات ،
جلابيات اليشمك ،
ديكور ،
الطفل ،
المرأة ،
مسجات ،
ديكورالمنزل ،
ديكور الحديقة ،
تصاميم ديكور ،
ديكور المطبخ ،
ستائر ،
مفارش ،
زفة العروس ،
زفات عروس ،
موديلات عروس ،
العروس ،
مسكات عروس ،
صور مكياج ،
مكياج جديد ،
العاب بنا ت ،
العاب للبنات فقط ،
العاب بنات ،
العاب اطفال ،
العاب زوارق ،
العاب بحرية ،
العاب كمبيوتر ،
العاب قتال ،
العاب حرب ،
العاب رياضية ،
العاب دراجات ،
العاب دراجات نارية ،
العاب السيارات ،
العاب اكشن ،
العا ب ،
ألعاب ،
نكت ،
مسجات حب ،
مسجات رومنسية ،
مسجات عراقية ،
مسجات مصرية ،
مسجات فراق ،
مسجات عتب ،
مسجات زعل ،
مسجات غرام ،
مسجات هيام ،
العاب كمبيوتر ،
تحميل العاب ،
مسجات جديدة ،
احلى المسجات ،
مسجات 2008 ،
مسجات غزل ،
نكت محششين ،
نكت 2008 ،
نكت جديدة ،
العاب فلاش ،
كورة ،
كرة قدم ،
اخبار الرياضة ،
رياضة ،
تحميل برامج ،
برامج كمبيوتر ،
تحميل برامج ،
كراك ،
سيريل ،
برامج جديدة ،
برامج تصميم ،
برامج عربية ،
برامج لاب توب ،
فتوشوب ،
فرش ،
ستايلات فتوشوب ،
خطوط عربية ،
خطوط انجليزية ،
خطوط جديدة ،
دروس فتوشوب ،
خامات ،
نغمات اسلامية ،
نغمات ،
mp3،
نغمات جديدة ،
نغمات نوكيا ،
برامج نوكيا ،
ثيمات جوال ،
ثيمات نوكيا ،
برامج اسلامية ،
برامج جوال اسلامية ،
ثيمات سوني ،
تنزيل ثيمات ،
ثيمات خاصة ،
ثيمات الجيل الثالث ،
ثيمات فنانين ،
ثيمات لاعبين ،
ثيمات فنانات ،
ثيمات متحركه ،
الماسنجر ،
مسنجر ،
تحميل الماسنجر ،
ماسنجر 9 ،
صور ماسنجر ،
توبيكات ،
توبيكات ماسنجر ،
ماسنجر الهوت ميل
ماسنجر بلس ،
بطاطس ،
شيز كيك ،
مقبلات ،
ماسنجر الياهو ،
تحميل فيديو ،
تنزيل فيديو ،
جديد الفيديو ،
فيديو مضحك ،
فيديو حزين ،
فيديو حقيقي ،
مقاطع فيديو ،
صور رومانسية ،
صور بنات ،
صور مضحكة ،
صور غريبه ،
صور متحركة
خلفيات ،
صور مسلسل نور ،
شنط ،
كوليكشن ،
احذيه ،
صنادل ،
hotmail ،
صور حب ،
تحميل صور ،
صور مرعبة ،
صور جن ،
يوتيوب ،
youtube ،
يوتوب ،
مقاطع يتويوب ،
تحميل يتويوب ،
جديد اليوتيوب ،
جديد الافلام العربية ،
تحميل افلام عربية ،
بوسترات افلام عربية ،
مشاهدة الافلام العربية ،
تنزيل الافلام ،
جديد الافلام الاجنبية ،
اروع الافلام الاجنبية ،
تسريحات العروس ،
بوكيهات العروس ،
بوكيهات ،
ماتحتاجه العروس ،
كاسات عرايس ،
عقود للعروس ،
تحميل الافلام الاجنبية ،
بوسترات الافلام الاجنبية ،
تنزيل الافلام الاجنبية ،
تحميل المسرحيات العربية ،
مسرحيات خليجية ،
مسرحيات طارق العلي ،
مسرحيات مصرية ،
قمصان نوم ،
بطاقات زفاف ،
سلطات ،
ايس كريم ،
ايسكريم ،
المندي ،
فيديو مرعب ،
صور نور ،
صور هدايا ،
مسكات ،
مسكات العروس ،
تسريحات ،
تنزيل مسرحيات ،
مشاهدة مسرحيات ،
مسرحيات ،
صور مطابخ ،
مغاسل ،
مرايا ،
ثريات ،
غرف طعام ،
افلام عربية ،
افلام اجنبية ،
افلام انجليزية ،
افلام كرتون ،
انمي ،
you tube ،
يو تيوب ،
مسلسل نور ،
غرف الضيوف ،
غرف نوم ،
مكياج العروس ،
دبل ،
فساتين زفاف ،
مسلسل نور التركي ،
ترافيان ،
رسائل حب ،
صور اطفال ،
ازياء محجبات ،
ارواب حمام ،
ربطات الحجاب ،
بلايز ،
ياهو ،
الغاز ،
hotmail.com ،
صور للماسنجر ،
العاب 2008 ،
محول الصوتيات ،
العاب بنت ،
بلياردو اون لاين ،
سابك ،
المسافرون العرب ،
ألعاب طبخ ،
الياهو ،
تحميل مسلسل نور ،
تحميل افلام كرتون ،
تحميل الانمي ،
جديد افلام الكرتون ،
جديد الانمي ،
توم وجيري ،
افلام كرتون للاطفال ،
صور افلام كرتون ،
صور انمي ،
رسايل حب ،
صور توم وجيري ،
نقوش حناء للعروس ،
تاج العروس ،
كوشات ،
فساتين بنات ،
تحميل صور افلام كرتون ،
اروع صور الانمي ،
صور افلام كرتون ،
تلبيس ،
العاب ميك اب ،
العاب طبخ ،
ألعاب بنات ،
ألعاب بنوتات ،
العاب بحرية ،
العاب زوارق ،
العاب قوارب ،
كتب طبخ ،
المطبخ ،
الكيك ،
كيك ،
شاروما ،

منتديات-شات--صور
قلوب-صور طبيعية-صور
متحركة-شات
الغلا-منتديات الغلا-تحميل
العاب-برامج-كتب
مجانية-برامج جوال-مقاطع
بلوتوث-مسجات-نغمات
نوكيا-ثيمات-العاب
جوال-دروس فوتوشوب-هكر-صور-صور
انمي-اخبار الفن-صور
فنانات-افلام-افلام
اجنبية-اناشيد
اسلامية-صور
سيارات-كاس امم اوروبا-تحميل
اهداف-محمد-سياحة
وسفر-منتديات
عامة-كاريكاتير-نكت-الغاز-خواطر-قصائد--حكايات-اساطير-روايات-حكم
وامثال-فساتين-منتديات
عروس-حلويات-اطفال-الطب
البديل-علم
النفس-مركز
تحميل الصور-دليل
المواقع العربية-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-برق-19-p1-p2-p3-p4-78-71-20-21-59-60-58-61-67-53-56-9-a9-a1-a8-a12--a15-a16-a18-ماسنجر-صور
بنات-51-26-a-b-c-d-e-e-f-g-h-j-l-29-43-47-13-6-dd-p18-f8-12-62-65-49l-f11-f86-مسجات
حب-مسجات عتاب-مسجات
شوق-صور ماسنجر-مسجات حلوة-صور
حب-صور بنات-شات
بنات-شات
الود-اغاني هيفاء وهبي-دردشة
بنت السعودية-عمرو خالد-ناصر
الفراعنة-صور نانسي عجرم-ياسر
القحطاني-دردشة
الشلة-نغمات-قصص-تامر حسني-العاب-طرب
توب-اوز-دردشة
اماراتية-شات اماراتي-دردشة
قطر-دردشة بحرينية-شات
قطر-شات البحرين-دردشة
لبنانية-شات
بنات-دردشة
اردنية-شات اردني-شات
عراقي-دردشة
عراقية-دردشة
سورية-شات سوري-شات
كويتي-دردشة كويتية
-ترافيان
-صور لميس-اناشيد
العفاسي
-صحيح البخاري-صحيح
مسلم-هيفاء وهبي-سنوات
الضياع-مسلسل نور-صور
اطفال-صور تامر حسني-صور
اليسا-صور مضحكة-صور
رمزية-صور ترحيب-صور
نانسي عجرم-صور حسام الرسام-صور
حزن-صور مهند-صور
نادرة-صور بنوتات-صور
للمسن-لعبة باربي-لعبة
الجاسوسات

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4

بلوتوث
يوتيوب
افلام
مدونة
Mzaeen’s Weblog
يوتيوب - فيديو - بلوتوث
تحميل افلام
مركز تحميل
العاب لعب العب
كلمات رومنسية - عبارات
رومانسية للمسن والماسنجر توبيكات خيانة - عذاب وحب
للمسن صور فنانين للماسنجر - صور
اليسا للمسنجر لا تفوتكم توبيكات ادعي علي بالموت -
توبيكات رومنسية رومانسيه ملونة توبيكات ملونه شوق وحب
وغرام للمسن - توبيك توبكات Msn صور بنوتات للماسنجر - صور
بناتية للمسن صور بنات رومنسية حلوة
للمسن msn صور قلوب رومانسية للمسن
جديدة فرقاك عادي ترى وأقل من
عادي - توبيكات ملونه للماسنجر مبينة بالصور احلى توبيكات رومنسية
لأحلى ناس تفضلوا هنا توبيكات رومانسية ملونة مع
صور عرض للمسن توبيكات حزينة ملونة
رومانسية للمسن احلى توبيكات للمسن
توبيكات رومانسية ملونة
توبيكات روعة 2008
صور مهند ونور للمسن
توبيكات مسلسل سنوات
الضياع لاتفوتكم اختصارات للماسنجر وكلمات
للمسن توبيكات ملونة حب وغرام
واحلى رومانسية للمسن بالصور صور نجوم ستار أكاديمي 5
نادر قيراط و زاهر توبكات توبيكات ملونه حب
مع صور بنات للمسن رموز للماسنجر صور للماسنجر بنوتيه
صور بنات للمسن صور مسنجر اطفال ماسنجر
صور ماسنجر رومنسيه كتابية
صور اطفال للماسنجر
توبيكات عن الاختبارات
صور قلوب مسنجر ماسنجر
للماسنجر 2008 صور بنات للماسنجر 2008
توبيكات توبكات ملونة حب
وغرام وعشق للمسن مسنجر ماسنجر , ماسنجريات Msn توبكات شعر لقصيده الشاعر
الرآئع .. سالم سيار أَغرب من اَلشوق في قصه
غرامي توبيكات مسنجر Msn pics
نك نيمات للماسنجر
صور مسنجر ماسنجر بنات
وشباب قلوب اطفال ايدي وارجل فنانين كتابية توبيكات حب كلن يقول الزين
كله بخلي تخصيص نغمة لكل شخص في
المسنجر بالصور مسنجر ماسنجر 8.5 Windows
Live Messenger 2008 Build 8.5.1302.1018 Final ثيمات مسنجر ماسنجر
الويندوز فيستا ماسنجر مسنجر بلس
Messenger Plus! Live v4.23.276 المتوافق مع مسنجر8.5 توبيكات و صور مسنجر
ماسنجر رائعة لقيت روحي بعد ما انا
لقيتك أمنيات عاشقه توبيكات توبيك لاحد يحبك
قدري حتى امك p!cs & top!cs ادعي علي بالموت توبيكات
أغاني راشد الماجد توبيكات مسنجر ملونه
للمسنجر صور انا شلون ذبل لوني بعد فرقاك صور ماسنجر ميريام فارس
صور مسنجرخطيره حدي + قلبي
يحبك + ليش تتركني...صور عرض للمسنجر حصريا لمزايين توبيكات هلاليه اتحاديه
نصراويه اهلاويه صور مهند للــ Msn اللي في
مسلسل نور زخارف مسنجر للاسماء
توبيكات مسنجر على كيفكم
طريقه إضافه الصور
والأشكال للماسنجر توبيكات ::!:: كذَبـ منْ
قآل انـي مـآاحبـكـْ ::!:: توبيكات ملونه مقدا ابتعد
عنك تراه بعدك يعذبني Topics برنامج ماسنجر لايف 8.5 -
Windows Live Messenger مقالب للماسنجر آنآ والله لي قلب حنآنه هو
سبب بلوآه .. توبيكآت .. القلوب